THE FREE TRADE ACCORD

THE FREE TRADE ACCORD; Both Sides Emphasize High Stakes of Trade Vote

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM,

Published: November 15, 1993

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14—
Just three days before the decisive vote in Congress on the North American Free Trade Agreement, supporters and opponents today stressed the political, economic and diplomatic stakes riding on the outcome.

Vice President Al Gore maintained that "the consequences of a defeat for Nafta in the foreign policy arena would be really catastrophic."

But two Democratic leaders who oppose the trade agreement, Representatives Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and David E. Bonior of Michigan, said approval of the accord would represent a crushing blow to American workers. Politically Important Vote

"I believe this agreement will lower our wages for workers who have jobs in this country," Mr. Bonior said. He added that he expected 500,000 American jobs to move to Mexico under the accord because companies relished the lower pay and looser environmental regulations south of the border.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on Wednesday on legislation that would put the trade agreement into effect. Politically, it is the most important vote remaining this year for President Clinton and Congress.

The President probably has the most to lose.

"He will be seen to have prevailed on a very tough vote, and it will help his Presidency if he does win," said Representative Vic Fazio, a California Democrat who supports the pact. "It will hurt his Presidency if he does not win because people are going to evaluate his ability to organize a majority."

Mr. Fazio, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which raises money and otherwise supports Democratic candidates for Congress, was interviewed by telephone last week. On television interview shows today, both sides predicted victory.

Mickey Kantor, the United States trade representative, said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," "I'm not going to predict how many, but we'll win."

On the same program, Mr. Bonior, the House Democratic whip, who has the responsibility for keeping track of how colleagues plan to vote, said the opponents had "about 222 votes going into this weekend."

There is one vacant seat in the 435-seat House. If all members vote, 218 votes will be needed to pass the measure. Counts Unreliable

Over a decade, the accord would abolish all tariffs and other trade barriers on 99 percent of the goods traded between the United States, Mexico and Canada, creating the largest free-trade zone in the world.

If the House, which votes first on tax and tariff issues, approves the legislation, the Senate is expected to follow quickly with its approval. If the House rejects the measure, the treaty will die, and there will be no need for a Senate vote.

The Associated Press reported today that its survey of all congressional offices found 204 Representatives opposed to the measure or leaning toward opposition, 176 in favor or leaning toward support and 54 with unannounced positions. A survey last week by The New York Times with the assistance of Washington Trade Daily, an independent newsletter, had similar findings.

But vote counts at this stage are unreliable. Many legislators clearly have made a commitment to vote for the agreement only if their votes become essential to the passage of the measure. Otherwise, they will vote against it.

The best bet is that Mr. Clinton will either prevail by a few votes , -- perhaps by only one or two, as was the case on the budget legislation last summer -- or lose by 30 or 40 votes after lawmakers are released from their commitment to support the White House.

Two previously undeclared Democrats came out in favor of the trade agreement today: Maria Cantwell of Washington and Karen Shepherd of Utah. Ms. Cantwell's announcement in her district in Seattle came just before Ross Perot led a rally there in opposition to the accord. Calls to Lawmakers

The outcome now seems to rest on the votes of about two dozen undecided representatives, divided about evenly between the two parties. The White House said Mr. Clinton spent much of today calling those lawmakers and asking for their votes.

Using a strategy that Presidents since Richard M. Nixon have employed, the White House arranged for the House vote to come just before Mr. Clinton leaves for an important international conference -- in this case, a meeting on economic matters next weekend in Seattle with the heads of the governments of 15 Asian nations. The meeting is under the auspices of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, known as APEC.

This strategy allows the White House to argue that defeating the free trade pact would weaken the President's hand in the eyes of foreign leaders. Mr. Gore made that case today on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," throwing out acronyms like a juggler tossing clubs.

"The President goes out to the APEC conference the day after the Nafta vote," Mr. Gore said. "The other countries in the world that are looking at this GATT negotiation are just waiting to see whether or not we have the courage of our convictions."

GATT stands for the the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the worldwide trade talks. Side Agreements Assailed

Mr. Bonior took issue with the view that approval of a trade pact with Canada and Mexico would strengthen Mr. Clinton's case in international negotiations.

He observed that to win votes, especially from the Florida congressional delegation, Mr. Clinton had approved special trade restrictions for imports of citrus fruits, vegetables, sugar and other commodities, just when the United States was trying to persuade European countries to stop protecting agricultural products.

And he complained that the Mexican Government had a weak record on human rights, while the United States was telling China and other nations that human rights should be a condition of open trade relations.

Debating Mr. Bradley head to head, Mr. Bonior (pronounced BON-yer) said: "This is supposed to be a free trade agreement? How are we going to deal with GATT when this is over with? What are we going to tell the French? We're just going to tell the French when this is over with, 'Well, you know, we just cut this deal on sugar. We cut it on wheat. We cut it on citrus.'

"How are we going to deal with the Chinese? When the President, the day after the vote, goes over and talks to the Asians, is he going to say, 'Well, we really didn't mean the democratization concerns we had with you and Singapore and other countries'?"

Unlike the debate last Tuesday night between Mr. Gore and Mr. Perot, which turned on personalities and one-liners, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Bonior stuck to substance and argued their cases in a tone of mutual respect.

Mr. Bradley called the vote "a historic moment" and continued: "This is not a vote that's going to come again next year or the year after. This is a one-time vote. I think you can parallel this to when Thomas Jefferson decided to buy Louisiana, when Seward and Johnson bought Alaska, when Harry Truman decided to reject isolationism and engage the world with greater trade and higher living standards around the world."